Journal of Sustainability Education
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers: Developing sustainability
literacy through futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking
Annie E. Warren Arizona State University
Leanna M. Archambault Arizona State University
Rider W. Foley Arizona State University
Abstract: The Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) intends to build a
capacity for educators to be able to understand: (i) the broad, complex nature of sustainability,
(ii) the problem-oriented, solution driven nature of sustainability, and (iii) how sustainability
connects to them as both citizens and classroom teachers. SEFT embraces four ways of thinking–
–futures, values, systems, and strategic which are conceptualized as being bi-directional and
interconnected. The framework aids in linking sustainability topics that are seemingly disparate
to the novice teacher population by building upon knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for
problem solving with respect to complex sustainability challenges. Imagined as a conceptual
framework, it offers organizing principles for examining and considering sustainability
problem/solution constellations in a coherent fashion. The framework provides the opportunity
for self-reflection and independent enquiry by considering and learning through real world foci.
Likewise, SEFT offers a logical framework for working in interpersonal, intragroup, and
intergroup situations. The four lenses require considering critical inquiries related to societal
values, equity, and visions of the future; unpacking the status quo; and exploring and articulating
pathways towards a sustainable tomorrow.
Keywords: sustainability literacy, sustainably education framework for teachers (SEFT), futures
thinking, values thinking, systems thinking, strategic thinking, and ways of thinking
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
Annie Warren is the Program Director for the Sustainability Science Education (SSE) Project at Arizona State University. In
addition to organizing the workflow and research of the SSE Project, she has also co-created two new required courses within
ASU’s Teachers College. The first is Sustainability Science for Teachers, a hybrid course that aims to educate students through
the use of technology, digital storytelling, and real-world explorations, and trains pre-service teachers on unique ways of
implementing sustainability in their future classrooms. The second course, Sustainability Science, Technology, and Society, is
offered to general education majors interested in pursuing employment in nonprofit, recreational, and/or government
organizations. In addition to being the course coordinator for these two courses and all related sections, Annie is also a Faculty
Associate for the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at ASU. She works to hire world-class instructors who are passionate about
the topics and motivated to engage students in a variety of new ways. Annie holds a BA in Sustainability, as well as a Master's in
Science and Technology Policy from ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. Additionally, she has a Professional
Masters of Interior Architecture from UCLA and is a LEED Accredited Professional. Currently, she is pursuing her PhD in the
Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology at ASU. Annie’s research focuses on understanding the human,
cultural, and sociotechnological dimensions of sustainability from an interdisciplinary perspective. Currently, she is working to
uncover how science and technology affect society and how society in turn responds and changes.
Leanna Archambault, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College and Lead Researcher/Liaison for
the Sustainability Science Education (SSE) Project at the Biodesign Institute ASU. Dr. Archambault’s research areas include
increasing sustainability literacy among pre-service and in-service teachers, teacher preparation for online and blended
classrooms, the use of innovative technologies to improve learning outcomes, and the nature of technological pedagogical
content knowledge. In addition to publishing in several prominent journals, she was awarded the Online Learning Innovator
Award for Important Research from the International Association for K-12 Online Learning in 2010 and 2012. In 2013, she was
named as the Promising Research Scholar for the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College. Thorough the collaborative development
of a newly required course for preservice teachers centered on sustainability and the Sustainability Education Framework for
Teachers (SEFT), Dr. Archambault seeks to have a lasting impact on the practice of future and existing teachers throughout the
state of Arizona and beyond. Dr. Archambault graduated from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas with a PhD in instructional
and curricular studies. As a former middle school English teacher, she is passionate about improving education, particularly
through the meaningful use of innovative technologies.
Rider W. Foley: The single unifying theme of my research is how to deploy emerging technologies safely while also addressing
critical environmental and social issues effectively. I aim to bring diverse knowledge sets together to enrich our understanding of
those challenges and, through this process, contribute to shared-learning and novel approaches to discovering the underlying
root causes to complex problems. My current research on nanotechnology leverages transdisciplinary team-based science to
frame broad sustainability challenges facing urban communities. The research engages with nanoscale scientists and engineers
to bring their interdisciplinary knowledge together to understand how nanotechnology may contribute to ameliorating social
problems. My research reaches out to entrepreneurs, issue-advocates, and policy-makers to enhance the stakeholders’ grasp of
the social dimensions of emerging technologies and discover beneficial applications of nanotechnology to address critical
environmental and societal challenges.
The authors, the development team, and the Center for Sustainable Health at the Biodesign Institute thank Arizona State
University (ASU) for the generous Strategic Initiative Funds (SIF) provided to form the Sustainability Science Education Project,
to develop the Sustainability Science for Teachers course, and other related projects at ASU. The Project was developed under
the leadership of Dr. Lee Hartwell. We thank the Center for Sustainable Health at the Biodesign Institute, the Mary Lou Fulton
Teachers College, the School of Sustainability, and the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes located at Arizona State
University for advice and many experienced students who helped with the project. A special heartfelt thank you to all current and
past Sustainability Science Education Project team members, colleagues, instructors, students, participants, and friends.
Warren et al.
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
Introduction
Educating the next generation on pathways toward a more sustainable way of life is of
paramount importance. In order to accomplish this goal, teachers are a vital population with
whom to work, and sustainability topics must be woven into teacher education and preparation
programs (Nolet, 2009). Engendering a more informed teacher requires translating major
sustainability challenges and solutions in a meaningful way together with articulating a deep
concern for meeting people‘s needs, intergenerational equity, caring for the world‘s poor, and
safeguarding the Earth‘s regenerative capacities (Our Common Future, 1986). Scholars have
broadened this understanding to encompass environmental concerns more specifically through
science and to denote the ecological relationships that exist between human-nonhuman and flora-
fauna-land interactions (Kates et al., 2001; Orr, 1992). To confront these problems, evaluate
solutions, and deal with growing inequities, education must be a central component to improving
the human condition. A key focus must be on preparing the next generation to make informed
decisions, challenge the status quo, and identify problems, as well as solutions.
Attending to populations with the potential of having the most catalytic effect is essential
to the goals of sustainability. Teachers, their roles in schools, and society at large can work
toward significant change for the better. Accordingly, to prepare teachers to take on this
challenge, education and training are essential components that must be addressed, evaluated,
and improved to meet this need (Nolet, 2009). Our Common Future, the Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (1987) states that, "the world's teachers have a
crucial role to play" in helping to bring about "the changes in attitudes, in social values, and in
aspirations‖ related to and required for the longevity of our planet (p. 8). Furthermore, Our
Common Future highlights that these changes will play out in the public sector through
deliberate education and public engagement. Teacher preparation programs must answer this call
and work toward a grander vision of preparing educators both as citizens and future leaders to
enter a changing world and civic space where problems and solutions related to sustainability are
seen as essential (United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2004).
For purposes of this paper, we shift from the current discourse on sustainability
definitions and overarching sustainability competencies to a more teacher-focused and
profession-specific vision for sustainability literacy. We highlight and explain the Sustainability
Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) in an effort to rapidly accelerate, inculcate, and
prepare teachers with the goals of sustainability through a fundamental shift and transformation
in the way they act, think, and engage with the world around them. The framework aids in
linking sustainability topics that may seem disconnected to the novice teacher population. It does
so by building upon knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for problem solving with respect
to complex sustainability challenges. The goal of the framework is to build a capacity for
teachers to be able to approach: (i) the broad, complex nature of sustainability, (ii) the problem-
oriented, solution driven nature of sustainability, and (iii) how sustainability connects to them as
both citizens and classroom teachers. The remainder of this paper outlines the Sustainability
Education Framework for Teachers and addresses examples of how it can act as an organizing
and motivating structure for exploring and operationalizing sustainability literacy as one of
several core literacies for teachers. Each element of the framework is defined and includes
related abilities and possible teaching strategies. An informative and detailed video accompanies
each lens and is meant to act as valuable visual material to further enhance the conversation on
sustainability literacy and the framework itself (see the following link for other supplementary
videos on SEFT).
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
Sustainability competencies and literacy Overarching and general sustainability competencies have been researched, articulated,
and evaluated by the field in recent years (see Wiek, Withycombe-Keeler & Redman, 2011). As
described by Wiek et al. (2011), general sustainability competencies take the form of bullet point
lists which aim to describe unifying themes, concepts, ideas, capacities, abilities, beliefs,
behaviors, and knowledge sets that are required to move towards a greater vision of
sustainability. The term competency refers to a wide set of skills, abilities, and behaviors that in
theory should be measurable and observable. Currently the field is grappling with which
sustainability competencies are the most valuable, justifications as to why certain competencies
are essential, and ways to measure each competency. In this paper, we shift the conversation
away from sustainability competencies to focus on sustainability literacy for teachers. This
articulation provides a transition to a more teacher-centric and profession-specific vision of
sustainability ( ertschy, n li, ehmann, Church & Skelton, 2010; Cortese, 2003;
Nolet, 2009; Sipos et al., 2008; Wiek et al., 2011).
The concept of literacy fits well when considering and working with teachers. While
there is a subtle difference between competency and literacy, and the terms are often used
interchangeably, we believe that professional programs for teachers should consider
sustainability literacy among other literacies such as math literacy/numeracy and language
literacy. These key literacies and overarching profession-specific skills such as classroom
management add up and embody the necessary abilities teachers must encompass for their field.
Literacies suggest a collection of skills that, once achieved and formed, can manifest a particular
level of competence that can be measured in the future. We use the term literacy as, ―a collection
of skills that allow for effective participation and influence in diverse areas of social life‖ (Stibbe
& Luna, 2009).
Nolet (2009) defines sustainability literacy as various abilities and subsequent actions
such as problem solving and informed decision-making. Likewise, the concept of sustainability
literacy is described by Tilbury (2011) as more than conveying new knowledge and, ― also
means learning to: ask critical questions envision more positive futures clarify one‘s own
values; think systemically; respond through applied learning opportunities; and to explore the
dialectic between tradition and innovation‖ (p. 13). Once teachers gain sustainability literacy,
they become empowered to (a) approach society with a critical lens; (b) teach sustainability
topics and ways of thinking to their students; (c) make informed decisions; (d) contribute to re-
thinking intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conceptions of society and the
environment (Bertschy et al., 2013; Nolet, 2009; Stibbe & Luna, 2009). Along with other key
literacies, teachers should be able to infuse sustainability literacy into their daily instruction and
across the curriculum (Santone et al., 2014).
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (SEFT) While scholars have worked in the area of sustainability literacy and with sustainability
competencies in general, a clear coherent framework for both preservice and inservice teachers
has yet to be clearly defined. We propose the SEFT, which aims to support the development of
sustainability literacy that builds upon existing work (Bertschy et al., 2013; Nolet, 2009; Stibbe
& Luna, 2009; Tilbury, 2011; Wiek et al., 2011) and answers the call for more specific
engagement by educators. SEFT aids in linking sustainability topics to existing curricula that
may seem unrelated to the novice sustainability teacher population by constructing knowledge
Warren et al.
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
and dispositions necessary for problem solving complex sustainability challenges. While distinct
sustainability content areas such as water, food, energy, poverty, population, ecosystem services,
production, and disposal may appear disconnected, our framework seeks to operationalize the
interconnections between and among sustainability-related topics. This framework provides a
landscape in which teachers can situate sustainability content knowledge, pedagogy, and craft
meaningful evaluations.
SEFT embraces four ways of thinking––futures, values, systems, and strategic––which
are more than just a list of steps or sets of knowledge that must be acquired. Instead, they are a
conceptual framework for analyzing and considering sustainability problems and solutions
through a networked approach. These specific four ways of thinking were identified after
extensive conversations with sustainability and education experts, reviewing the existing
literature, and considering how to prepare teachers meaningfully to take on the role of educating
for sustainability. While these four ways of thinking are discussed across the literature in general,
they are typically considered in isolation, articulated in a dispersed fashion, and/or examined
with complex terminology (Wiek et al., 2011; Stibbe & Luna, 2009; Bollmann-Zuberbuhler et
al., 2014). Highlighting and clarifying these four ways of thinking provides an opportunity to
strengthen a more robust inquiry of sustainability topics, content, pedagogy, and evaluation.
While each of these ways of thinking are presented in a specific order in this paper, they should
be considered in parallel as they are conceptualized as being bi-directional and interconnected.
Likewise, the logical entry point in the framework presented is dependent upon the problem
and/or solution being questioned or observed. Intentionally, this framework is not represented
with an accompanying Venn diagram because that type of visual representation may limit
creative uses of the framework, create a false sense of overlap, and/or suggest a specific
procedure for a given context that was not intended. In addition, SEFT is not meant to be
prescriptive. The ways of thinking can be implemented in conjunction with one another or used
individually after careful consideration of the topic has taken place.
SEFT provides the opportunity for self-reflection and independent enquiry by considering
and learning through real life issues (Stibbe & Luna, 2009). The framework offers a logical
method for working in interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup situations. The four lenses may
be used in a variety of ways. They require considering critical inquiries related to societal values,
equity, and visions of the future; unpacking the status quo; and exploring and articulating
pathways towards a sustainable tomorrow. The strength of the framework is that it requires
considering other people, places, times, and spaces beyond the universe of just one person. It is
about structuring knowledge(s) and mapping out a plan to address a particular situation through a
problem/solution constellation that exists at a variety of temporal scales (Wiek et al., 2011).
Through the framework, we are proposing that teachers as both citizens and educators must be
able to understand, evaluate how, and take action on the following notions:
Observed symptoms are the result of cascading effects linked to interconnected systems
(Meadows, 2008);
Values connected to over-consumption and inequitable distribution of resources is
creating conflict (Ostrom, 1990);
Human-caused environmental damage to the biosphere and local ecosystems is
threatening the viability of future human generations (Rockstrom et al., 2009); and
Solutions to sustainability challenges must consider trade-offs and be constructed
strategically to maximize benefits and ameliorate negative unintended consequences
(Costanza, 2011; Gibson, 2006).
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
Making use of the framework and working through these sets of problem/solution constellations
leads to achieving sustainability literacy. Each of the four ways of thinking are described in the
following section.
The four ways of thinking: Building sustainability literacy
Futures Thinking. Futures thinking is also known as anticipatory thinking, foresight, or
trans-generational thinking. Sustainability requires future thinking. It includes, ―the ability to
collectively analy e, evaluate, and craft rich ‗pictures‘ of the future related to sustainability
issues and sustainability problem-solving frameworks‖ (Wiek, et al., 2011, p. 208-209). Futures
thinking integrates the ability to think systematically about the future and future generations. In
seeking sustainable solutions, stakeholders, policy makers, innovators, and citizens need consider
how past decisions led us to the crises we face today. We need to anticipate and imagine how
today‘s solutions could introduce negative cascading effects and become tomorrow‘s problems.
Likewise, we need to work through plausible scenarios of the future that can lead to safer,
happier, and healthier futures, and work to achieve these futures today. Futures thinking works to
answer the question, where are we headed? Futures thinking allows for anticipatory approaches
to understanding, mitigating, and/or adaptively preparing for future changes, problems, and
solutions (Gibson, 2006). Evaluating how unexpected events, such as hurricanes or newly
enacted policies, could change our future plans is a necessary element of this type of thinking.
Futures thinking challenges us to become more flexible the further into the future we envision.
The longer the amount of time between the present and the future, the more uncertain a particular
future may be. Thinking about the future requires understanding and being comfortable with
uncertainty. Sustainability necessitates learning from the past, exploring the present, thinking
about the future, and developing solutions that are adaptable and resilient.
Futures thinking includes the ability to:
Discuss how people in the past affected our options today, and how we now affect the
options of people in the future (Our Common Future, 1986)
Anticipate the potential future consequences of inaction in the present, often referred to
as the ‗no-action‘ scenario
Envision desired futures and contrast them with the present status quo as a means to build
strategies or ‗backcasting‘ (J. Robinson et al., 2011)
Recognize emerging trends and their potential future trajectories (D. Robinson et al.,
2011
Imagine a diversity of futures based on change in one or more dynamics or variables
(Selin, 2007)
Recognize different theories of how futures emerge (Kuhlman, 2001)
Consider that futures are aspirational, and create futures instead of accepting futures
(Newman & Jennings, 2008)
Cope with the potential unintended consequences of interventions, ideas, and/or solutions
we fabricate through adaptive management (Norton, 2005)
Conceptualize different aspects of futures:
o Utopian (ideal) or dystopian (repressive)
o Possible futures (plausibility)
o Probable futures (likeliness)
Warren et al.
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
o Value-laden futures (desirability, sustainability)
Educators should consider the broad range of plausible futures so that we can educate
society to envision and create a more sustainable tomorrow. Futures thinking can be used in the
classroom by beginning to engage students with multiple possible outcomes of decisions and
actions. Students can journal about the variety consequences associated with the choices they
make, and teachers can push students to engage beyond the obvious first choice answers.
Another idea is to make use of scenarios in the classroom. Scenarios are a tool that teachers can
implement to help students think about how the future might unfold. Scenarios can take many
forms beyond a written format such as visual, auditory, embodied, kinesthetic and/or verbal.
Students can work in groups developing alternative ends to stories they are currently reading or
discuss and map out a range of possible outcomes. Thinking about the future also requires an
understanding of the past. Knowing where decisions and outcomes originated from can support
projections into the future. Teachers can guide students as they conduct a macrohistory, seeking
patterns of change, or consider historical trends. Futures thinking asks teachers to explicitly
address multiple futures and prepare students to ask questions, think critically about the past,
challenge the status quo, and envision tomorrow on a variety of time scales.
Values Thinking. Values thinking is also known as value-focused thinking, orientation
thinking/knowledge, and/or ethical thinking. Because sustainability is a field that is problem-
oriented and solution driven, potential solutions require values thinking. This includes, ―the
ability to collectively map, specify, apply, reconcile, and negotiate sustainability values,
principles, goals, and targets‖ (Wiek et al., , p. 9). To use values thinking involves
concepts of justice, equity, social–ecological integrity, and ethics. It also means understanding
how these concepts vary across and within cultures, and how integrating these concepts
contributes to solving sustainability problems. According to Veugelers (2000), ―Developing
skills to analyze values and to communicate them is necessary to show students that values are
constructs and that people can make choices for certain values‖ (p. 9).
Due to the complex problems the world faces such as poverty, access to nutritious food
and clean water, and our current energy crisis to name a few; solutions cannot arise from a single
group or discipline. Rather, solutions need to borrow insights from many fields and areas of
expertise in order to understand nature and our interaction with it. Another essential element for
values thinking is to consider how our current problems and possible solutions impact a variety
of different people. Solutions must be fair to concerned stakeholders and should be transparent in
order to be equitable. Just as the development of sustainable solutions should involve everyone
affected, solutions should not just benefit a single person or group.
Values thinking includes the ability to:
Assess a problem and its context comprehensively
Describe how justice, equity, and social-ecological integrity vary across and within
cultures (Holifield, Porter, & Walker, 2010)
Determine how integrating justice, equity, and social-ecological integrity impact solving
problems (Holifield, Porter, & Walker, 2010)
Specify, negotiate, and apply values, principles, and goals while recognizing multiple
viewpoints from others (Kurtz, 2008; Rolston, 1994)
Articulate and work through preconceived notions (Rawls, 1985)
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
Ensure group consensus is not achieved by limiting stakeholder involvement (Fischer,
1993; Corburn, 2007; Bäckstrand, 2003)
To explore values thinking in the classroom, teachers can help students seek different points
of view, as well as explore their own feelings and values on various issues. Teachers should
demonstrate and exhibit a strong sense of fairness and social justice in the classroom as a model
for performance beyond the classroom. This can be accomplished through discussions in which
students have the opportunity to ask questions, clarify and analyze their values, and explore
others‘ values in a safe space. Students should work through techniques on active
listening/participation and role-play to allow them to view issues from different points of view.
Teachers can also engage students in values thinking through the use of debates and discussions
in the classroom. In addition to role-playing and debates, students should be able to ask
clarifying questions and explore how values operate in a range of contexts that might not be
initially transparent. Teachers should be sensitive to students needs and make sure topics are
appropriate for the grade level, culture, and the community in which they are located.
Systems Thinking. Systems thinking is also known as interconnected thinking or holistic
thinking. According to Wiek et al. (2011) systems thinking, ―is the ability to collectively analyze
complex systems across different domains (society, environment, and economy) and across
different scales (local to global), thereby considering cascading effects, inertia, feedback loops,
and the other systemic features related to sustainability issues and sustainability problem-solving
frameworks‖ (p. 7). Systems thinking does not claim complete knowledge. Rather, systems
thinking is about assessing the degree of system complexity and analyzing system dynamics to
make informed decisions that reduce the risk of negative outcomes.
Systems thinking requires that we capture, begin to understand, and recognize that a
system is a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships, flows,
and/or networks, some of which might not be readily transparent. Systems thinking is non-linear.
This means that in systems thinking, cause and effect are not necessarily linked or connected
with simple step-by-step chains. While sociotechnical events may be separated by place, time,
and distance, systems thinking can illuminate how incremental changes can invoke large
complex changes in other systems. Connections between human and natural systems are of
particular interest, because they offer excellent examples of cascading effects, illustrating that
what might seem to be a simple outcome of a given system can actually have a series of effects
on other interconnected systems. With systems thinking, it is important to unpack the
interconnected nature of all elements and to understand that reacting to a problem in one part of
the system may have unintended consequences on other components or the process as a whole.
Systems thinking includes the ability to:
List system components, denote flows in particular directions, and map out systems as
needed (Meadows, 2008)
Assess degrees of system complexity (Casti & Karlqvist, 1986)
Analyze systems with a holistic perspective (Wheeler, 2014).
Conceptualize diverse interconnections between systems
Recognize system dynamics, cascading effects, feedback loops, and system states
(Meadows, 2008)
Warren et al.
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
Recognize patterns and underlying relationships among problems and possible solutions
(Grunwald, 2004)
Describe intentionality, systemic inertia, path dependencies, barriers, and alliances
To support systems thinking in the classroom, teachers can help students explore how things
might change under different circumstances. Games and models are a great tool to demonstrate
this relationship of change under different circumstances. Teachers should encourage students to
look at possible associations and connections beyond what is specifically being studied. This is
so they can seek possible explanations of these relationships, and realize how these systems often
directly impact one another. Students should be actively looking at possible associations and
connections beyond the information that is being presented. Teachers can have students review
case studies or current news stories to identify transparent and hidden connections. Teachers
might consider conducting an institutional analysis, which includes a robust review of existing
practices, mechanisms, and procedures currently in place. For example, a classroom project
might be unpacking and exploring how food gets to the local grocery store or how specific
products relatable to students are produced. Students should actively share findings with their
peers and discuss as a class both hidden and visible flows. Teachers should move between local
and global examples as a way to highlight the interconnected nature of the world around us.
Strategic Thinking. Strategic thinking means being able to develop a strategy or a plan to
achieve a particular vision. Strategic thinking frames every decision by how it contributes to
achieving that vision. Strategic thinking is, ―the ability to collectively design and implement,
interventions, transitions, and transformative governance strategies toward sustainability‖ (Wiek
et al., 2011, p. 210). It involves considering possible solutions under a given certain set of
assumptions, articulating potential alternative solutions, and challenging existing assumptions
and alternatives, potentially leading to new solutions that may be more appropriate (Lawrence,
1999). Strategic thinking involves using analogies and qualitative similarities to create new ideas
in addition to developing a course of action dependent on new learning (Lawrence, 1999). This
means finding creative ways to solve the critical problems of our time and understanding and
working to reduce inequalities. Strategic thinking involves finding opportunities for creativity,
innovation, and learning, as well as creating new institutional frameworks for collaboration and
better governance. One common stumbling block to strategic thinking is the status quo. The
current state tends to exert a lot of influence over future states and can result in path dependency
where our current state sets a path for the future. Good strategic thinking takes path dependency
into account and can even turn it into an asset or an advantage.
Strategic Thinking includes the ability to:
Recogni e the ―big picture‖ (e.g., overall themes, trends, goals) in light of specific, local
problems and solutions
Design interventions that address sustainability problems at multiple temporal scales
(Loorbach, 2007)
Anticipate and build contingency plans for potential unintended consequences by making
good use of anticipatory governance (Guston, 2014)
Create intervention strategies to avoid undesirable scenarios and realize sustainable
visions (Kemp & Rotmans, 2005)
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
Collaboratively design and work to implement interventions/solutions that address
sustainability problems
Comprehend the impact of local problems on the global scale, and vice-versa (Geels,
2010)
Describe viability, feasibility, efficiency, and efficacy of systemic interventions
Educators can develop strategic thinking with their students by making use of inquiry-
based and project-based instruction such as designing, testing, evaluating, and adapting policies,
programs, and action plans with their students. This can range from outlining a plan to collect
food for a local shelter to suggesting a new after-school program at their school. Strategic
thinking can be clearly conveyed in a meaningful way to students when working with real-world
problems and solutions. Therefore, it is important to recognize that strategic thinking must be
practiced live with real-world situations in order to achieve the particular cognitive activity that
is required for this way of thinking. This type of thinking engages students as productive citizens
who have ideas that can be implemented meaningfully with care and well-crafted plans.
Providing opportunities for students to challenge the status quo, keep an eye on the big
picture, and reflect on every step while evaluating their personal progress as well as the group‘s
progress is key for strategic thinking. Because this way of thinking is focused on having a vision
and working to make it a reality, games and puzzles can be of good use for students to work on
strategic thinking. Teachers should encourage students to move beyond the idea of winning as
the ultimate result. Rather, strategic thinking is about the process, evaluation, and anticipation of
the need to develop and deploy contingency plans for potential unintended consequences of
choices previously made. By doing so, teachers can discuss, review, and map out design
intervention strategies with their students to avoid undesirable scenarios and to build the
necessary knowledge and skills to be able to create meaningful change.
Illustrative videos
Provided as a rich visual resource to complement and promote these descriptions,
abilities, and possible teaching strategies are four brief videos on each way of thinking. These
videos are made freely available for wide dissemination and use. Articulating the framework in
written, auditory, and visual formats is of particular interest for capturing practical use by both
scholars and educators alike. The accompanying videos are meant to act as supplemental
material to further enhance, explain, and ignite the conversation on sustainability literacy and the
four ways of thinking: futures, values, systems, and strategic thinking as presented by the
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers (see the following link for more
accompanying information on SEFT). The videos provide easy to follow narratives and
examples related to each way of thinking in addition to presenting graphic indicators that capture
the essence of these ideas. From text to videos, concepts related to sustainability must be shared
in a variety of capacities in order to achieve maximum effect with minimal barriers.
Implications
The need for integration with sustainability as part of teacher education and professional
development is an essential component that is largely being overlooked (Carney, 2011).
Although preservice teachers have expressed an openness and enthusiasm regarding infusing
sustainability topics in their classrooms, they are often not addressed in existing teacher
education coursework (Carney, ). As Nolet ( 9) writes, ―In the United States, educational
Warren et al.
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
leaders, particularly those concerned with the preparation of teachers, have yet to respond
meaningfully to the issues of over-consumption, human-caused environmental damage, and the
global and human catastrophe we are creating‖ (p. 4 ).
To address this need, SEFT was developed to assist teachers with developing
sustainability literacy so they are better prepared to produce globally-minded and knowledgeable
citizens. This includes being able to address issues from an intergenerational perspective,
embrace stewardship, challenge the status quo, identify the need social justice and fair
distribution, respect limits, appreciate the importance of local place, understand the need for
economic restructuring, see nature as a model and a teacher, and identify with global citizenship
as part of their curriculum (Nolet, 2009). In addition, teachers need to be able to take a global
perspective to encourage their students to see that issues, people, cultures, and places are
interconnected and that complex systems operate on a variety of transparent and hidden levels.
Likewise, teachers need to impart critical thinking skills, which are directly linked to decision-
making capabilities (Church & Skelton, 2009).
Teachers must spend time grappling with the SEFT approach and deploying the process
with their own thinking before they can make good use of it as an educator. Once teachers have a
better understanding of SEFT, they can begin implementing the approach as described in their
classrooms at their specific grade level. Through the framework, teachers will be able to become
more nimble with the problem-oriented, solution driven nature of sustainability and how
sustainability connects to the curricula they are already teaching in a seamless fashion. The four
ways of thinking described by SEFT offer a way to synthesize and evaluate the many facets of
the complex and interdisciplinary field of sustainability in a significant yet unobtrusive fashion
in the classroom. Utilizing the framework creates an inquiry-based approach to problem-solving
(Bybee, 2002) that leverages student curiosity and promotes search and discovery skills. Because
this framework is meant to act as a landscape in which to situate new knowledge and ideas,
teachers of all grade levels can make use of it with their students. SEFT can be implicitly
incorporated in lesson plans or activities and/or teachers can use the framework to evaluate new
materials for their students. SEFT offers four lenses that work together to support a better
understanding of the world we live in today and the one we desire in the future.
Conclusion
SEFT provides a landscape in which new knowledge about sustainability can be situated.
This conceptual framework articulates concrete abilities and teaching strategies for linking
pedagogy and learning to the goals of sustainability literacy. SEFT can provide a rich insight into
key elements that should be infused into education for sustainability. It can also serve as a guide
for meaningful assessment and evaluation of sustainability units, lesson plans, and activities. The
authors' approach provides a unique attempt at articulating, mobilizing, and implementing
sustainability literacy for the educator audience in a succinct and coherent fashion. The
framework embodies the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for problem solving with
respect to complex sustainability challenges. It clearly outlines the aim of sustainability literacy
in both written and visual format with the provided videos (SEFT). Our hope is that by
leveraging and implementing the framework in the classroom, teachers will be able to introduce
vital issues to the next generation of decision-makers, enabling them to face key sustainability
challenges of the 21st century.
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
References: Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-
makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4),
24-41.
ertschy, F., n li, C., ehmann, . ( ). Teachers‘ Competencies for the
Implementation of Educational Offers in the Field of Education for Sustainable
Development. Sustainability, 5, 5067-5080
Bollmann-Zuberbuhler, B., Kunz, P., & Frischknecht-Tobler, U. (2014). Essential Elements of
Sustainability Education. Journal of Sustainability Education, 6, 1-8. Retrieved from
http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/FrischknechtUrsulaEtAlJSEMay2014PDFReady.pdf
Bybee, R.W. (2002). Scientific inquiry, student learning, and the science curriculum. In R. W.
Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning (pp. 25-64). Arlington, VA:
NSTA Press.
Carney, J. (2011). Growing our Own: A Case Study of Teacher Candidates Learning to Teach
for Sustainability in an Elementary School with a Garden. Journal for Sustainability
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.journalofsustainabilityeducation.org/ojs/index.php?journal=jse&page=article
&op=view&path[]=46
Casti, J. & Karlqvist, A. (Eds.) (1986). Complexity, Language, and Life: Mathematical
Approaches Biomathematics (Vol. 16).
Church, W., & Skelton, L. (2010). Sustainability Education in K-12 Classrooms. Journal of
Sustainability Education, 1-12.
Corburn, J. (2007). Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing
policy expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(2), 150-161.
Cortese, A. (2003). The Critical Role of Higher Education in Creating a Sustainable Future.
Planning for Higher Education, 15-22.
Costanza, R. (2011). Needed: The solutions generation. Solutions, 2(5).
Diamond, S. & Irwin, B. (2013). Using e-learning for student sustainability literacy: Framework
and review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(4), 338–348.
Fien, J. & Tilbury, D. (1996). Learning for a sustainable environment: An agenda for teacher
education in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok, 42-66.
Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From
Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases. Policy Sciences 26(3), 165-187.
Geels, F. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level
perspective. Research Policy, 39 (4) 495-510.
Gibson, R.B. (2006). Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(3), 170-182.
Grunwald, A. (2004). Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reflexivity
and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of
Foresight and Innovation Policy 1, 150-167.
Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‗anticipatory governance‘. Social Studies of Science, 44(2),
218-242.
Holifield, R., Porter, M., & Walker, G. (Eds.). (2010). Spaces of environmental justice.
Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell.
Warren et al.
Vol. 6, May 2014
ISSN: 2151-7452
Kates, R., et al. (2001). Sustainability Science. Science, 292 (5517), 641-642.
Kemp, R. & Rotmans, J. (2005). The Management of the Co-Evolution of Technical,
Environmental and Social Systems. Towards Environmental Innovation Systems 33-55.
Kurtz, L. (2008). Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict. (Vol. 2). Academic Press.
Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe — three scenarios.
Research Policy, 30(6), 953-976.
Lawrence, E. (1999). Strategic thinking: A discussion paper. Ottowa Personnel Development and
Resourcing Group, Public Service Commission of Canada. Retrieved from
www.hrbartender.com/images/thinking.pdf
Loorbach, D. A. (2007). Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable
development. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.
Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing Company.
Newman, P. & Jennings, I. (2008). Cities as sustainable ecosystems: Principles and practices.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nolet, V. (2009). Preparing sustainability-literate teachers. Teachers College Record, 111(2),
409-422.
Norton, B.G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Orr, D.W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs,
14(3), 223-251.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future
(1986). United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
Robinson, D. K. R., Huang, L., Guo, Y., & Porter, A. L. (2013). Forecasting innovation
pathways (FIP) for new and emerging science and technologies. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 267-285.
Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O'Shea, M., & Walsh, M. (2011). Envisioning sustainability:
Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability
research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 756-768.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, FS. III, & et. al., (2009). Planetary
boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society,
14(32).
Rolston, III H. (1994). Value in Nature and the Nature of Value. In Attfield, R., & Belsey, A.
(Eds.), Philosophy and the Natural Environment (pp. 13-30). Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK.
Santone, S., Saunders, S., & Seguin, C. (2014). Essential Elements of Sustainability in Teacher
Education. Journal of Sustainability Education, 6, 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Santone-Et-Al-
JSE-May-2014-PDF-Ready.pdf
Selin, C. (2007). Scenarios for Success: Turning Insights into Action. Arizona State University
In Sharpe & van der Heijden, 27-52.
Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability learning:
Sustainability Education Framework for Teachers
Journal of Sustainability Education
http://www.susted.org/
Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education, 9(1), 68-86.
Stibbe, A. & Luna, H. (2009). Introduction. In A. Stibbe & H. Luna (Eds.), The Handbook
of Sustainability Literacy Skills for a Changing World (pp. 9-16). Cornwall, UK: Green
Books Ltd.
Tillbury, D. (2011). Education for Sustainable Development. New York: Unesco. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001914/191442e.pdf
UN Department of Public Information (2010). Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/hq/dpi/od.shtml
United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2004). United Nations decade
of education for sustainable development: Draft international implementation scheme.
Retrieved from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=36025&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html and
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod01t05s01.html
Wheeler, G. (2014). Core and Essential to Education for Sustainability. Journal of Sustainability
Education, 6, 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/WheelerGildaJSEMay2014PDFReady.pdf
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: A
reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2),
203-218.
Veugelers, W. (2000) Different ways of teaching values. Educational Review, 52(1), 37-46.